On Consciousness

[Leumas]

As the person who mentioned Penrose--I completely agree with calling it "an unnecessary and unecessarily speculative hypothesis". I'm not trying to defend the hypothesis. I also shan't try to defend hypotheses two and three of the present poll. I'm just saying that Penrose's theory doesn't appear on this poll, and therefore those who do subscribe to it, for whatever reason, don't really have an option to vote for here.

Assuming that the poll items are listed in order from least to most woo-ey, I'd put Penrose's hypothesis between one and two. Something like:

1. Consciousness depends on known physical processes, and can be simulated, at least in theory, on a general purpose computer
2. Consciousness depends on known physical processes which are too "quantum" or "chaotic" or otherwise, somehow, inherently beyond our ability to compute.
3. Consciousness depends on elements beyond physics, possibly beyond our known universe, and beyond our ability to detect.
4. On Soviet Planet X, Consciousness thinks you.

I'd still pick the first one, but at least everyone would have an option to pick.

And how does that make it any less valid than the just as speculative other hypotheses?

This speculation

Can be simulated, at least in theory, on a general purpose computer​

Is nothing but CONJECTURE and wishful thinking by "programmers" who have FAITH that they can create Pinocchios by typing a few lines of code because they have been deluded by too long an immersion into science fiction programs on TV and movies and literature and by too much video game playing and programming.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Virtual entities!!!
I see so mathematical models run on a computer are what we should judge AI progress by? Okay now I don't care anymore about this discussion, it's irrelevant to everyone who lives in the real world. Let me know when you think of building physical examples of your virtual entities that may impact reality and we can pick up the discussion again. In the meantime have fun playing in virtual land. Try not to use too much electricity whilst you play it's bad for those who need rely on reality for survival.

I figure you are involved in consciousness threads to preach, and since we won't let you without challenge, you are exiting. That's OK with me, but it might be better if you were explicit about the message you wanted to share with the world and showed some interest in learning from others.

 

[Mr. Scott]

This poll is a false dichotomy...especially when Scott himself has admitted that the third choice was [a joke]

The false dichotomy is

You either agree with his SPECULATIONS and CONJECTURES or you are a WOO BELIEVER​

It is not just a false dichotomy...it is an egregious insult to anyone who sides with the scads of scientists who disagree with his FAITH in SCIENCE FICTION.

Yikes! It's JREF Forum culture to add a joke final choice "on planet X..."

I did not intend to pose it as a false dichotomy, although after posting I did regret my bias in the wording, but polls cannot be edited.

I'm not sure that the essential question (consciousness can or cannot be achieved in general purpose computing machines?) is a false dichotomy. Are you suggesting that quantum consciousness is detectable by today's scientific instruments?

What are some other possibilities?

 

[Mr. Scott]

As the person who mentioned Penrose--I completely agree with calling it "an unnecessary and unecessarily speculative hypothesis". I'm not trying to defend the hypothesis. I also shan't try to defend hypotheses two and three of the present poll. I'm just saying that Penrose's theory doesn't appear on this poll, and therefore those who do subscribe to it, for whatever reason, don't really have an option to vote for here.

Assuming that the poll items are listed in order from least to most woo-ey, I'd put Penrose's hypothesis between one and two. Something like:

1. Consciousness depends on known physical processes, and can be simulated, at least in theory, on a general purpose computer
2. Consciousness depends on known physical processes which are too "quantum" or "chaotic" or otherwise, somehow, inherently beyond our ability to compute.
3. Consciousness depends on elements beyond physics, possibly beyond our known universe, and beyond our ability to detect.
4. On Soviet Planet X, Consciousness thinks you.

I'd still pick the first one, but at least everyone would have an option to pick.

My problem is I've seen no evidence to support #2 or #3. I don't think we have any evidence computers could NOT simulate ANYTHING in the known world, do we?

I just finished watching a history of computing documentary, and it reminded me of this thread that the first electronic computers were built to simulate ballistic trajectories, which they did beautifully. You can draw a line from that to current AI simulations. Sure, someone will say that the ENIAC's simulations did not destroy targets, but the brain is a control mechanism for the body, and a simulated mind could control a body, achieving the same effect as a biological conscious mind. To continue to refute that is, to me, an argument that consciousness has some kind of other metaphysical energy or substance as its output (epiphenomenalism as per the OP). I equate it with woo because it is, conveniently, not measurable.

 

[dlorde]

In fact, you put the title in the URL rather than the URL itself.

Oh, I'm sorry! a schoolboy error... At least it made for an amusing result

I wonder if a conscious machine would blunder like that, and, if so, how useful it wold be...

 

[case#46cw39]

And how does that make it any less valid than the just as speculative other hypotheses?

This speculation

Can be simulated, at least in theory, on a general purpose computer​

Is nothing but CONJECTURE and wishful thinking by "programmers" who have FAITH that they can create Pinocchios by typing a few lines of code because they have been deluded by too long an immersion into science fiction programs on TV and movies and literature and by too much video game playing and programming.

Forget classic syntax-only simulations. Even Rappaport who thinks semantics can be derived from syntactic machines he is designing (Sneps) using syntax-semantics systems says semantics (meaning) must be provided for true artificial consciousness. The two options are that or a semantics based machine. But that's a programmer's design problem.

But in general allow me to show you how easy it is to build artificial (man made) consciousness. There was a post in other thread that began the operational definition of consciousness. The biological psychologists said it it "synonymous with attention".

So, attending to what? Obviously the next question. In the AISB pdf file quoted above it says the following:

"A machine, in order to be conscious, has to be able to perceive the world, its bodily self, and also the flow of it's own mental content. ... It is a straight-forward task to design a robot that reacts to sensory stimuli; it is even able to learn something and can adjust its responses. It is another thing to design a robot that ALSO generates and actively seeks to perceive the external world according to the needs of this inner life. Yet it is this inner life [this "attending to"] that would provide a robot with "self', "mind", and personality. ... Recently there have been some attempts towards that direction. ... Nevertheless, robots with true inner life remain yet to be demonstrated."
Page 19 Haikonen http://www.aisb.org.uk/publications/proceedings/aisb05/7_MachConsc_Final.pdf

Well "programmers," what a delicious little challenge. Does that make it easier to imagine? It should. There's the state of the art, circa 2005 and common knowledge to all robotic AI researchers. That 41% who claim it is impossible just are not up to speed on the subject. That's plenty for any programmer to get busy. The problem should be obvious. Artificial consciousness is synonymous with attention, and that requires meta-programs or programs about programs. Do you think they are impossible? Of course not. It just takes time because the base programs all have to be written to have something for the meta-programs to process! Voila!

 

[Brian-M]

Not so. Quantum observations can be mirrored. This is not necessarily the same as quantum states. It depends what we are actually getting with quantum observations - i.e. is the observation the complete system? If they are the complete system, no problem. If they are not, that could well be a problem.

If the observed quantum behavior of the model is the same as observed quantum behavior in the real world then the quantum model is accurate, regardless of any hypothetical unknown states underlying the real-world quantum behavior.

The exact weather in London on January 21st 2013.
The exact movement of the NYSE from September 1st 2015 to November 2nd 2015.
The exact yield of wine grapes from the Loire wine region in France in 2012.

You know future physical events which are practically unpredictable.

These things may be practically unpredictable (or in other words, unpredictable in practice), but that doesn't make them unpredictable in theory. In chaotic systems (such as weather) the outcome can vary considerably based on minute differences in initial conditions. The problem here is not that it can't be computed, but that we don't have anywhere near enough information about exact details of the system being modeled to generate a reliable prediction. (And it would be effectively impossible to collect the required information.)

But whether or not a computer model will produce the exact same outcome it the real-life system it was created to imitate is irrelevant to this discussion. The important thing is that the model behaves the same manner for the same reasons, regardless of differences in outcome.

Which weather, which stock market, which wine yields?

Any, real or imagined. Computers are theoretically capable of simulating any possible system.

And therein lies the problem. The limited information we are capable of collecting on specific real-life systems like these could match any of billions of slightly different hypothetical systems, all of which can have different outcomes. So without complete information, the simulated system will probably not be exactly identical to the real system it was created to predict.

Plus we don't have computers anywhere near powerful enough, or information storage devices vast enough to create a complete model even if we had the capacity to collect the information on these things. (You'd pretty much have to model the entire planet, and maybe even the sun too, because variations in solar activity can affect the weather.)

(Well, in theory do we have computers powerful enough, if you don't mind waiting a few eons for next month's weather prediction.)

 

[Leumas]

Any, real or imagined. Computers are theoretically capable of simulating any possible system.

It depends on what you mean by "simulating"....

If you mean simulating by producing images on a screen....then that is a TRIVIAL issue.

If you mean emulating as in actually replicating the system's function....then do you think computers can emulate the solar system?

Do you think that a computer can simulate a galaxy or a black hole in a manner so as to BE a solar system or galaxy or black hole?

I would love to see you build a computer ("real” not “imagined") that can REPLICATE the physics of a black hole or a Sun.

By the way....when you've finished writing the amazing lines of code that create the SIMULATION of a star so as to replicate it and you can get some usable energy out of it please inform all those fusion researchers that you have managed to CREATE a FUSION REACTION inside your laptop.... they might award you a Nobel Prize... that is if they manage to stop laughing first..... not to mention the gazillions of dollars you can make from your computer program running on your laptop producing all this clean energy.

Unless of course it is all IMAGINED….. just like we can imagine all sorts of impossible things which nevertheless remain impossible despite us imagining and wishfully thinking them to be real.

By the way…. If you can also get your computer ("real” not “imagined") to make reality out of the system pictured below you might be in on some amazing new UNIVERSE…. see… imagined computers can even replicate new universes with a whole new physics not just some paltry black holes and galaxies.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Do you think that a computer can simulate a galaxy or a black hole in a manner so as to BE a solar system or galaxy or black hole?

This is key. Why is that an apt comparison?

It's like Pigliucci's assertion that consciousness is like photosynthesis, in that a computer could simulate photosynthesis, but it would fail to produce real sugar. Likewise, a computer that simulates consciousness would fail to produce real consciousness.

What, therefore, is the output of consciousness, the substance it produces, and what evidence is there that it's real?

 

[angrysoba]

Yikes! It's JREF Forum culture to add a joke final choice "on planet X..."

I did not intend to pose it as a false dichotomy, although after posting I did regret my bias in the wording, but polls cannot be edited.

I'm not sure that the essential question (consciousness can or cannot be achieved in general purpose computing machines?) is a false dichotomy. Are you suggesting that quantum consciousness is detectable by today's scientific instruments?

What are some other possibilities?

I think the false dichotomy comes from assuming that consciousness is either replicable in computers or non-physical.

It may be physical (or supervenes on the physical) without being replicable in computers.

 

[Leumas]

My problem is I've seen no evidence to support #2 or #3. I don't think we have any evidence computers could NOT simulate ANYTHING in the known world, do we?

I just finished watching a history of computing documentary, and it reminded me of this thread that the first electronic computers were built to simulate ballistic trajectories, which they did beautifully. You can draw a line from that to current AI simulations. Sure, someone will say that the ENIAC's simulations did not destroy targets, but the brain is a control mechanism for the body, and a simulated mind could control a body, achieving the same effect as a biological conscious mind. To continue to refute that is, to me, an argument that consciousness has some kind of other metaphysical energy or substance as its output (epiphenomenalism as per the OP). I equate it with woo because it is, conveniently, not measurable.

Good.... at least you admit that it is YOU who is the problem and lacks a wider more informed view.

But as you probably might not agree... YOU are not the AUTHORITY on any of this despite your, I am sure, quite impressive programming abilities.


If I had a dollar for every person who believed things just because he could not conceive or comprehend any alternative to what he thinks I would have about 7 Billion dollars.... and that is not counting all the dead ones who did the same.

 

[quarky]

It might be something else altogether.

(No)
I wrote that 'no' so Pixy wouldn't need to.

Rather than label me wooish for suggesting that consciousness might be something of a background energy field, let's consider where it has sprung from.

A singularity?
Spontaneous generation?
Phlogistan?

Please, don't even bother to assume I'm in the I.D. crowd. I'm not.
However, there is something fabulously wooish about the very existence of everything from nothing.

We tend to skirt around that and get all excited about the details that follow.
We know plenty about what probably happened after the 'big bang'.
Yet, as of today, we seem to know nothing about the underlying reality that everything hatched from. Its not even pleasant to contemplate...especially for those that are cock-sure about what followed.

I find it odd that the notion of a conscious planet is outrageous, yet, the notion of creating artificial consciousness is relatively reasonable.
The only horse I have in this race is rejecting arrogance.

Perhaps that is arrogant, except my conjectures are merely conjectures.
Some of us here act like they don't expect any major surprises in their knowledge and understanding, yet, if we are willing to extrapolate on the long ride to scientific understanding, we are almost always wrong. And the 'flavor' of our historical wrongness is nearly predictable in one regard:

The truth we slowly uncover is always more fantastic; more bizarre; more complex; older; larger; less predictable than the previous level of truth we tend to settle for.
In some ways, this tendency to settle in with the latest revision, however correct it might be today (relative to yesterday) reminds me of religious fundamentalism.

I suspect we're in for some surprises.
The realm of consciousness is apt to supply some of those surprises, as we understand almost nothing about it.

Its also strange (to me) that Penrose has become something of a wooster, relative to the jref zeitgeist. With Sheldrake, i can understand it, though he isn't a moron. But Penrose?

Even Einstein was more open to the overall mystery of existence than the average jref skeptic. The Higgs boson particle that we seek to tidy up the math is likely to be discovered and created simultaneously. It may have no reality without our fantastic manipulations and observations.

 

[angrysoba]

Good.... at least you admit that it is YOU who is the problem and lacks a wider more informed view.

But as you probably might not agree... YOU are not the AUTHORITY on any of this despite your I am sure quite impressive programming abilities.


If I had a dollar for every person who believed things just because he could not conceive or comprehend any alternative to what he thinks I would have about 7 Billion dollars.... and that is not counting all the dead ones who did the same.

I personally can't see how you could know that.

 

[angrysoba]

Its also strange (to me) that Penrose has become something of a wooster, relative to the jref zeitgeist. With Sheldrake, i can understand it, though he isn't a moron. But Penrose?

I am not that sure why it is but I have noticed that there is often a correlation between those who like Sheldrake's ideas and those who like Penrose's. Same with (strong) Gaia, which I think you were hinting at before.

I recently had an argument with someone who was constantly going on about Penrose, Sheldrake, Gaia and Amit Goswami PhD and telling me that my world view was hopelessly materialistic and that Penrose had proved that human minds are "non-algorithmic" and that Lovelock had proved Gaia was true and that Sheldrake had proved morphic fields and Goswami had proved a self-aware universe that looks at us and creates and all of this. I just said that I don't think any of that had been proved and that I probably thought none of it was true.

I realize that this is my own prejudice but when I see Penrose I tend to see "woo" (although I hate that word).

 

[Leumas]

This is key. Why is that an apt comparison?

I am going to respond to this in a way you seem to prefer…

1- I was responding to the post that claimed that

Any, real or imagined. Computers are theoretically capable of simulating any possible system.

Notice the emphasis on “Any computer” and “any possible system”.
​

2- It is in fact quite an applicable comparison....even though you do not see why… see steps 3 to 9 for an explanation

3- Do you think that there is something WOO about solar systems and galaxies?

4- So why are they not replicable in a computer?

5- Is it something metaphysical about suns that we cannot replicate them in laptop simulations?

6- Or is it perhaps you do think that one day we might be able to simulate a fusion reactor inside some silicon running some code?

7- Are you able to conceive of why a computer is unable to replicate a fusion reaction?

8- If your answer to step 7 is yes.... then good... can you therefore comprehend that maybe there are things that might also make it not applicable for a computer to replicate consciousness due to limitations that despite YOU being incapable of comprehending might nevertheless be quite an obstacle?

9- Can you see how it is a false dichotomy to claim that either one believes that fusion reactions should be theoretically replicable in computers or else he must be a woo bagger?

What, therefore, is the output of consciousness, the substance it produces, and what evidence is there that it's real?

When you figure that out please go inform the scores of scientists working on the subject and don't forget to collect your Nobel Prize on the way.

In the meantime, please don’t let your incapacity to think of answers other than the ones you are able to think of drive you to precipitous fictive speculations.

BUT ABOVE ALL…. more importantly….STOP INSULTING people who disagree with you by attributing to them woo beliefs just because they do not have the same FAITH as you do in your FICTIVE SPECULATIONS about creating Pinocchios.

 

[case#46cw39]

Rather than label me wooish for suggesting that consciousness might be something of a background energy field, let's consider where it has sprung from.

A singularity?
Spontaneous generation?
Phlogistan?

I find it odd that the notion of a conscious planet is outrageous, yet, the notion of creating artificial consciousness is relatively reasonable.

You are confusing essence with function, operationalism based on explanatory theory with operational definitions only interested in empirical function. As I said in a prior post, essence we don't have to know in order to figure out and re-create function. There is that other view:

Does Our Brain Really Create Consciousness? physicist Peter Russell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-russell/brain-consciousness_b_873595.html

I understand that view is out there. But that question or answer do not impact on re-creating the function of consciousness in a different substrate. (It doesn't rule it out. The two can co-exist peacefully.)

 

[Leumas]

The only horse I have in this race is rejecting arrogance.

Then I am afraid your horse is going to drop dead from exhaustion...

 

[case#46cw39]

By the way, if you are looking for a way to quickly write the base programs for a robot (to which the meta-programs or consciousness are added) try Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio. You can now do so on the macro, high level programming level (a long way from assembler) Enjoy, the future is all around us. I was at a medium sized town's public library and there were many good, new books on robotic AI. I was surprised; I didn't think there would be many.

http://www.microsoft.com/robotics/

 

[quarky]

Here's 2 problems I have:

A. There is a tendency amongst we humans to lump things into cozy categories. if someone (like me, for example) tosses out a conjecture in a discussion about something that is poorly understood, we are apt to be labeled. It hasn't happened in this thread, particularly, but it is very common. I find that tendency to be fundamentally non-scientific.

B. What i call 'arrogance', for lack of a better word, is a proclivity amongst the skeptical to focus on the fantastic; i.e., creating artificial consciousness before we know what consciousness is; discuss interstellar space travel before we know what's under the Antarctic ice cap or at the bottom of the ocean. I find that trend to be disturbing, or at least intellectually lethargic.

When i was in college, it was thought that biology was more or less done; we'd discovered all the species on the planet. Now, we have new kingdoms.
Lovelock and Penrose aren't the enemies. They are both quite brilliant, actually.
Their speculations are reasonable, regardless of their validity.

Human arrogance is a curse. The study of cetaceans, for instance, was nearly crushed by our knowledge of whaling. There was scant curiosity concerning other large brained mammals on this planet, except in matters of killing them. It took a grass roots movement to keep some whales around long enough to learn about them. And we still know almost nothing about wild whale behavior. We're barely curious. We're far more curious about new weapons. So i sing Kumbaya, I guess, while marveling at the species die-off as we hold tightly to the crown of creation, with little regard for any potential contenders.

 

[Brian-M]

It depends on what you mean by "simulating"...

By "simulating" I mean reproducing the processes by representing the elements involved in these processes as numerical values and providing instructions (a program) describing how these elements affect each-other.

And what are intelligence and consciousness if not processes performed by the brain?